Do you think the law should stop parents who have split up taking children out of the country, if the parent left behind doesn't agree to them leaving?

[Spero]

I'd be really interested to hear what you think - I've got a professional and a personal interest in this question.

Personally I feel quite strongly that if two people decide to have a child they should accept that they need to live as close as possible to each other so that the child gets the benefit of both of them, at least while the child is little. Otherwise, how does that child get to have a relationship with the parent that he/she doesn't live with?

I had one case where the mother of a one year old said she was moving to Australia - no real reason why she couldn't have waited a few years (she had family out there to live with) until the baby could at least talk and therefore be able to speak to his dad on phone/web cam etc. by making that decision she made sure her son wouldn't know his father as neither of them could afford to fly back and forth more than once a year. The court gave her permission to go.

I feel very strongly this is just wrong and I think the courts should reflect this and only allow parents to leave the country in exceptional circs, at least while the children are, say, under 10.

I thought the parent that is not moving had to give permission, i'm sure thats what happened when i was moved to america as a child, or was that a massive tiny white lie my mother told me.

I can see a problem with that, though. I know of someone who moved to a country far away from her home with her partner, had a child and then the relationship broke up. I don't know this person well so don't know the details but I can imagine that she found herself in a country that was not home and that perhaps no longer felt as welcoming as it might previously have done, far from her own friends and family. She came back to the UK and, although I can imagine sympathising with the parent left behind (and with the child who has minimal opportunity for contact with him), I don't think I could bring myself to agree that she should have been prevented from doing so.

I don't know.

Yes I think the child has the right to a relationship with the non resident parent and if they move far away, that is difficult (It's hard enough if they are the other side of THIS country, never mind the world!) so no, it is NOT fair on the child to do this and it DOES mean they will miss out on a lot.

OTOH, what about cases where the parent who has custody wants to move abroad because they have no family, no friends, no money, are all alone and need some human contact with people who love them. Are they getting that love and support from the ex? Probably not. Is it right to say that they must stay somewhere they are deeply unhappy and have nothing,so that the non resident parent can have their weekly 2 hours contact?

However, if the parent with custody just feels like moving, for no particular reason, then I don't actually think that's fair.

I can't really have an opinion on the subject as a whole, all I can do is have an opinion on a case by case basis, because the individual circumstances need to be looked at.

You are quite right, the court does have to give permission, but it seems that it is a bit of a rubber stamp - all the parent wanting to leave has to do is say, I've got somewhere to live, prospects of a job etc and away they go. If the parent says I'll be very upset if you don't let me go, the court seems to think that trumps everything else.

I just think it should be a bit harder than that, especially if the children are very young. Shouldn't you have to accept that you've just got to get on with it and stay in the same country for a while?

I think it's more difficult than a simple rubber stamp - I know of two people who have been prevented from emigrating because of objections from non-resident parents.

Didn't Sir Bob stop Paula Yates from taking the girls to live in Australia?

malovitt, you're right it is probably a bit unfair to call it a rubber stamp, but it does seem in lots of cases that the wishes of the parent to move is seen as more important than rights of children to know both parents.

I have a lot of sympathy with parents who are far from home and everyone they know and love.... BUT I still come back to the issue - once you have a child with someone, doesn't that make a big difference?? don't you just have to grin and bear it? Assuming of course the other parent is not mad or dangerous and your child would benefit from the relationship continuing...

Sir Bob did stop Paula Yates moving the children to Australia but I think that was because of concerns over her drug use/lifestyle, plus her girls were well settled in English schools etc.

Yes, yes I do think the law should do much more, particularly if the non-resident parent is fit and involved in the child's life.

In the US, the laws are much more strict about removing a child.

I'm from the US. I married a Scotsman and had children here.

If we split up, that's too damn bad for me. If I don't like it, I'm homesick blah blah blah then I'm perfectly free to go back there.

Without my kids.

Because it is dead wrong for me to break off a relationship they have with their father just because I can't hack it here.

Should have thought about that before having kids with someone from another country, is my opinion.

I know someone who has now lived in the UK for 13 years (she's Kiwi), not really entirely happily, because she felt her son deserved a relationship with his father.

He is now 18 and she's chosen to go back and he did, too, with his father's blessing.

If the parent left behind is involved in their child's care as opposed to seeing them when they feel like it, then yes I think the law should do more to prevent the child and parent from being separated. I think it must be heart wrenching for an involved, loving parent to be separated from their child

sorry techpep, I see now i misread your post - if the parent staying gives permission, that's fine; its when the other parent doesn't give permission that you have to go to court.

expat, you have summed up my views exactly. it is interesting to hear it from someone in your position.

do you think if the courts made if very clear it was going to be tougher to remove children that people might think a bit more about their relationships and who they have children with?? or is that just very naive and unrealistic. I guess very few people start a relationship and get pregnant without at least hoping they will stay together.

A bit of a different scenario here...

Me and DP are both English but live and have had our DC's in a different country.. If we were to split up I would have no hesitation in moving back to the UK with our children. It is my home and where my family and the majority of my friends are. I would have no reason to stay here. It would be DP's decision to stay here or return to the UK.

But the non resident parent can do as they wish can't they????? Plus they may move purely to avoid paying maintenance!

CarGirl, that is a very interesting point. I've also had clients desparate for the other parent to take an interest in the children, but there is nothing the law can do to make someone have contact or even send a birthday card. I suppose the only real solution is to only let emotionally intelligent people be parents but i guess that would be completely unworkable and potentially quite evil.

the law restricts non-resident parents, too, in the US at least.

and they can't move to get out of paying.

if they move countries and don't pay up, they can be extradicted.

child maintenance there is treated the same way taxes are - you pay up or face jail.

oh, don't pay your maintenance and you can't renew your driving license, professional licenses, passport, etc.

here, they just leave the resident parent to turn to the state to pick up the tab all too often.

Also the non-resident parent can marry someone and move abroad to be with their family, or take a promotion which means moving etc.

Meanwhile the resident parent and potentially new spouse can be completely limited.

Also you can still move within the UK fairly freely so if you're in the north move to cornwall just to be obstructive.

Although aren't there different restrictions for Scottish residents?

Scotland isn't within the jurisdiction of English courts, so I am not sure what rules apply, if you don't need permission the other parent could apply for a prohibited steps order to stop you going.

you could make it difficult to pursue a relationship if you moved from say Liverpool to Tauton, but it wouldn't be as bad as moving from Liverpool to Sydney! At least you could still travel once a month to see the children if they stayed in the UK.

Realistically Newcastle to Cornwall is a days travelling each way which then would be restrictive to even visiting monthly. When I drive 250 miles to stay with my friend it kills me, I like to go stay for at least 3 nights to recover enough to do the journey back!

We have recently taken solicitors advice onthis subject because there is talk of my step daughter moving abroad. He advised that the court would not stop her mum moving abroad. Our only hope is that step daughter, who is nearly 12, is desperate not to go but not sure how seriously this is taken into account and how realistic our chances are of her living with us.

Sorry, CG, I was comparing the OP to the situation in the US, where a non-resident can in many instances be as restricted.

I understand the situation is different in the UK and yes, including Scotland .

SGM, I don't want an outright ban, because it would mean situations like yours, when a parent who has no meaningful relationship with a child is just trying to be bullying and obstructive. I mean in those situations where there is an ongoing and good relationship between both parents and child.

Does anyone know if anyone has ever done any research by speaking to children, now grown up, who were in this situation and how they now feel about it? I am off to google...

dont get me started,

dps ex left the country,

dispite contact from legal people,

she is a law to herself (a bitter one at that)

divorce states unlimited contact for the record,

she decided she wanted a new life,

her and dp and were ok until new man came on the scene,

she resented his disapproval about the relocation so moved again to an unknown address in europe,

he has not seen his children for 8 years

i do think that no one has ever been punished for making a mockery of the justice system foe absent parents

Depends on the circumstances.

8 fucking years,

thats our circumstances,

8 years of not seeing them,

8 years of not knowing them,

8 fucking years wasted,

8 years of the children not knowing him,

8 FUCKING YEARS LOST

and more as every single day passes...